Myth Buster 3
08/30/2014

       With out a reason to do it earlier I pulled the body off the SVO last night to start
cleaning her up. I knew the tire was blow off the rim and had picked out of the nose of
the car that evening. What I didn't know was that it made that trip from the trunk area.

       Note the bent right side mount? Made the trip up and back nearly in the traps
when the "BANG" came. What I wouldn't know till last night is that it hit hard enough
to kick a hole in the trunk lid. The wing covers that area from above so went
unnoticed.

       LOL, Talk about a sitting duck!! Right!


1.) Body pinning. The need to float.
2.) Chassis stiffness tied to point #1.
3.) Hub sizes and rubber hardness for hard chassis.
4.) The need for "special rubber".
5.) Glue up.  

It confirmed a few as well.

1.) Power to weight.
2.) Power matched to the set up.
3.) Sidewinder is more efficient than Inline.

      A = F/M. Newtons second law solving for acceleration shows the
for any given Force the smaller the Mass the higher the acceleration
rate. Covered a bunch of times here before.

      No matter what mathematical disciplines that sprung from
Newtons three laws of motion, they as a foundation, put men on the
moon, docked space stations and collide atoms in accelerators.

      Newton however did not create nor invent these laws. He
observed them and posed them in formulas that others
could/would/should understand. God did the creating. It's that simple.

      When you look at a slot car this second laws limits of application
get pointed out pretty quickly. Give it enough power or a "weak"
enough mass and it does not accelerate. It's disintegrates. Does that
mean there is a flaw in God's law? Never. Means the expression of
that law did not cast a wide enough net or that its definition as to
boundaries was not made clear enough. By fault or by design it
matters not.  My guess is that Newton wrote for exceptionally
intelligent men who practice rational though.

      "Weak" is the word that needs some explanation.

      Structural integrity. The shapes, sizes and strengths
of materials
required to withstand the forces applied.  

      There is a minimum mass (weight) that can be manipulated with
geometry and material properties that will successfully withstand the
force required for any given rate of acceleration well enough to
accomplish the acceleration rates goal.

      If there is a secret to "More with Less" it is in this one simple
idea. Less power requires less mechanical integrity to accomplish the
same rate of acceleration and can do so because the F and M stay in
the same ratio or proportion even though F continues to decline. This
is
not so useful in classes that have minimum weights but can be
exploited in those without.

      This is why points one and two of the second set can not be
divorced.

       Can that be summed up? Sure!

       Make it as light as possible that is consistent with the required
structural integrity.
Counter
Veni Vidi Vici